Starbucks to require corporate staff work from office four days a week
will require corporate staff to be
in the office
at least four days a week and is offering cash to employees who decide to quit instead, as executives bank on in-person work to improve the company's flagging performance.
The world's largest coffee house chain on Monday increased the number of days employees are required to work in the office from three to four.
The mandate from chief executive Brian Niccol shows how some US companies are retreating from liberal remote work policies adopted during the pandemic. Amazon, which like Starbucks is headquartered in Seattle, this year ordered staff to be in the office five days a week.
READ MORE
All Starbucks corporate managers with direct reports will also be required to work from the Seattle or Canadian headquarters in Toronto within 12 months, the company said.
Mr Niccol said in a message to employees: 'We know we're asking a lot of every partner as we work to turn the business around. And we understand that the updated in-office culture may not work for everyone.'
'To support those who decide to 'opt out,' we're offering a one-time voluntary exit programme with a cash payment for partners who make this choice,' he added.
[
Return-to-office edicts aren't always what they seem
Opens in new window
]
The vast majority of Starbucks' more than 350,000 employees work inside its coffee houses. Executives plan to hire more baristas to improve customer service and reverse a protracted slide in sales.
Fewer than 20,000 are employed in corporate support, as well as in store development, roasting, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, according to its annual report.
The Juggle: the issues facing women with young children when balancing childcare and their careers
Listen |
44:30
Starbucks in February cut 1,100 office jobs and eliminated hundreds of open and unfilled positions. Company leaders with the status of vice-president or higher who had been working remotely were required to work from the Seattle or Toronto offices. Monday's announcement applied that requirement to all corporate managers.
Mr Niccol joined Starbucks last year from Newport Beach, California-based Chipotle Mexican Grill with a goal of turning around the coffee chain's flagging business. His employment agreement promised him a 'small remote office' in Newport Beach and said he would not be required to relocate to Seattle.
Starbucks said Mr Niccol has an office and a house in Seattle.
Mr Niccol wrote: 'We are re-establishing our in-office culture because we do our best work when we're together. We share ideas more effectively, creatively solve hard problems, and move much faster. Being in-person also helps us build and strengthen our culture. As we work to turn the business around, all these things matter more than ever.' - Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
2 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Butler brothers granted stay on High Court order restricting their ability to act as company directors
Two brothers behind a number of high-profile Irish franchises – including several Starbucks cafes, TGI Fridays, Mao, and Hard Rock Cafe – have secured a stay on a court order restricting them from acting as directors.
Irish Examiner
13 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Butler brothers secure stay on order restricting them from acting as company directors
Two brothers behind a number of high-profile Irish franchises — including several Starbucks cafes, TGI Fridays, Mao and Hard Rock Cafe — have secured a stay on a court order restricting them from acting as directors. In a judgment published last month, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill found Colum and Ciaran Butler failed to prove they acted responsibly in the operation of one of their companies, Downtul Ltd, which leased a premises at St Stephen's Green, Dublin, that operated as a Starbucks. Downtul was placed in voluntary liquidation in November 2022. The judge granted a declaration sought by Downtul liquidator Patrick O'Connell restricting the brothers from acting as company directors or secretaries for five years unless the company meets certain requirements set out in the Companies Act 2014. Such an order means that, for the Butler brothers to act as directors of a company during that five-year period, that company must have share capital of at least €100,000 paid up by shareholders — or €500,000 in the case of a public limited company. The judge had found the brothers did discharge the burden of showing they acted honestly in the operation of Downtul. Lawyers for the Butlers on Tuesday successfully applied for a stay on the order, after submitting their clients would require time to get their affairs in order. Brian McGuckian told the court his instructions were to seek a stay on the order for six months, for two reasons. He said he was firstly seeking the stay to allow the Butlers time to organise their affairs, noting Ciaran is the director of 134 companies, while Colum is the director of more than 170 companies. Mr McGuckian said there was a general practice of the court affording directors time to organise their affairs in the context of an order of this kind. He said he was also seeking a stay pending a possible appeal being brought against the High Court decision. Padraic Lyons SC, for the receiver, said there was an obvious distinction between the granting of a stay pending an appeal, and a stay to allow the directors to get their affairs in order. His side had received no correspondence on a potential appeal, and there were no draft grounds of appeal before the court. It was a matter for the directors to put before the court arguable grounds for appeal, he said. Mr Lyons agreed there should be a stay granted to allow the directors to organise their affairs, but submitted that six months was an excessive amount of time. Ms Justice Nessa Cahill said she would grant a stay of four months to allow the Butlers to organise their affairs. She said she was not granting the stay pending a possible appeal, but noted the granted stay will be the same terms had she acceded to the application for a stay pending appeal. It was a matter for the respondents if they wished to bring an applicant to appeal, she said.
Irish Times
14 hours ago
- Irish Times
Butler brothers secure stay on order restricting them from acting as company directors
Two brothers behind a number of high profile Irish franchises – including several Starbucks cafes, TGI Fridays, Mao and Hard Rock Cafe – have secured a stay on a court order restricting them from acting as directors. In a judgment published last month, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill found Colum and Ciaran Butler failed to prove they acted responsibly in the operation of one of their companies, Downtul Ltd, which leased a premises at St Stephen's Green, Dublin, that operated as a Starbucks. Downtul was placed in voluntary liquidation in November 2022. The judge granted a declaration sought by Downtul liquidator Patrick O'Connell restricting the brothers from acting as company directors or secretaries for five years unless the company meets certain requirements set out in the Companies Act 2014. Such an order means that, for the Butler brothers to act as directors of a company during that five-year period, that company must have share capital of at least €100,000 paid up by shareholders – or €500,000 in the case of a public limited company. READ MORE The judge had found that the brothers did discharge the burden of showing they acted honestly in the operation of Downtul. Lawyers for the Butlers on Tuesday successfully applied for a stay on the order, after submitting that their clients would require time to get their affairs in order. Brian McGuckian told the court his instructions were to seek a stay on the order for six months for two reasons. He said he was firstly seeking the stay to allow the Butlers time to organise their affairs, noting that Ciaran is the director of 134 companies, while Colum is the director of over 170 companies. Mr McGuckian said there was a general practice of the court affording directors time to organise their affairs in the context of an order of this kind. He said he was also seeking a stay pending a possible appeal being brought against the High Court decision. Padraic Lyons SC, for the receiver, said there was an obvious distinction between the granting of a stay pending an appeal, and a stay to allow the directors to get their affairs in order. His side had received no correspondence on a potential appeal, and there were no draft grounds of appeal before the court. It was a matter for the directors to put before the court arguable grounds for appeal, he said. Mr Lyons agreed there should be a stay granted to allow the directors to organise their affairs but submitted that six months was an excessive amount of time. Ms Justice Nessa Cahill said she would grant a stay of four months to allow the Butlers to organise their affairs. She said she was not granting the stay pending a possible appeal, but noted the granted stay will be the same terms had she acceded to the application for a stay pending appeal. It was a matter for the respondents if they wished to bring an applicant to appeal, she said.
